Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 163 posts

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#81

Post by thyrsus »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #75
rauljara wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left out poor white people in your discussion. While white people do have a lower rate of poverty than blacks or latinos, they actually make up a very large majority (68.5% as of 2009) of the people living under the poverty line in the United States. [1] "... let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here." "Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a f…

Forgive me for offending your politically correct sensibilities, but it seems that I'm going to have to be even more blunt: if you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse. The only way to do that is to try something similar in neighborhoods that are comp…

I don't believe those who have contempt for the poor have any less contempt for science, and social science in particular.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#82

Post by nnq »

Another restatement of the obvious. Hopefully the studies' data will help convince people once and for all that:

MONEY matters a lot, in all aspects of life: it makes people healthier (both physically and mentally), improves actual/usable creativity and intelligence, leads to better education and better social webs, ESPECIALLY when coupled with MORE FREE TIME (yes, it matters a lot that the Cherokee that got that money didn't have to spend more time working in order to get it).

Doing what you love matters, but until a certain wealth threshold, being better compensated for what you do (whether you like it or not) and having enough free time, matters more (an no, people that get more by working more don't get all the benefits of that "more" they get, it also matters to "get more by giving less").

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#83

Post by protomyth »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #75
rauljara wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left out poor white people in your discussion. While white people do have a lower rate of poverty than blacks or latinos, they actually make up a very large majority (68.5% as of 2009) of the people living under the poverty line in the United States. [1] "... let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here." "Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a f…

Forgive me for offending your politically correct sensibilities, but it seems that I'm going to have to be even more blunt: if you want to convince white people in this country that doling out free money to the poor is a good idea, you're going to have to convince them that blacks and latinos aren't going to abuse that system en masse. The only way to do that is to try something similar in neighborhoods that are comp…

You could have probably gone with: a tribally (single culture or group) owned and operated business paying dividends to its members is likely to have different results than a welfare payment from a government where ownership is distant.

I'm actually fairly offended that people are equating dividends from a tribal business with welfare. It is a bit insulting.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#84

Post by vectorsys »

1stop wrote: post #73
vectorsys wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The healthcare isn't free no matter how many times you people say that. But you're also wrong about Australia being "a very similar society to the US". Maybe at one time, but Australia has some very authoritarian laws these days - from gun control to internet filters, etc..

Healthcare is free in that anyone anywhere can go to a hospital with anything and be treated for it without paying anything. (And everyone who earns enough money pays taxes). You really want to argue that healthcare isn't 'free'? Gun control isn't 'authoritarian' it's sensible. Only with a screwed up U.S agg-prop point of view could you construe it as 'authoritarian', there is no mention of guns as a "right" in any o…

Australia is very authoritarian. They actually confiscated the guns. not just made them illegal. They threatened law abiding citizens with prison time for not turning them in.

Here http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm when other authoritarian regimes have confiscated guns.

Not only that, but crime went up in Australia. Obviously the criminals didn't turn in their guns.

Australia also makes it mandatory to vote. Any kind of forced action like that is very authoritarian.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#85

Post by vectorsys »

vectorsys wrote: post #71
1stop wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia has the equivalent of a "stipend" for poor, unemployed, students, single parents, etc. Plus free healthcare for everyone. It is a hugely successful program with a very low percentage of exploitation (i.e using the money for drugs, or contributing to unemployment rate). It has been constantly tweaked for the last 20 years. You don't need to look at obscure tribal examples within America, you can just look at…

The healthcare isn't free no matter how many times you people say that. But you're also wrong about Australia being "a very similar society to the US". Maybe at one time, but Australia has some very authoritarian laws these days - from gun control to internet filters, etc..

Only in the distorted, leftist mindset are things free because they just happened to be paid with taxes.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#87

Post by notdrunkatall »

gruseom wrote: post #80
notdrunkatall wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. There are differences between the subcultures, and those differences almost certainly extend to how they treat money. Furthermore, the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be ov…

the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated It can be overstated; you've overstated it. In contrast to the careful research described in the article, you've just made a bunch of stuff up. Your rush to assume race as the dominant factor is another example.

Do you know what the Swedes didn't have a problem with a decade ago? Welfare abuse. All of a sudden, they have a problem with it now. Do you know who are the ones abusing the system? Hint: it's not the Swedes.

Every other country which has accepted middle eastern immigrants in the last decade are experiencing the same problems.

If a population does not respect your system, they will abuse it, period.

If you can get over yourself for a second, I'm sure you'll be able to figure out why.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#88

Post by at-fates-hands »

quinnchr wrote: post #65
at-fates-hands wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>>> xcept that the plurality of U.S. charity goes to religious charities. Who actually do quite a bit of good with it: "We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate a…

That doesn't really refute my point at all. Catholic charities devoted to human services are counted under human services. I'm not sure where I said religious charities don't help people. They most certainly help members of their respective congregations. But they also can do a lot of harm, like you know, oppressing people by opposing same sex marriage, or pretty much anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.…

Wow - I don't even know where to start. . .

>>>>> They most certainly help members of their respective congregations.

You missed this part of the article:

"In 2010, Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes an annual list of the 400 biggest charities in the United States,"

I'm pretty sure NONE of that is going directly back to congregation members. It's charity, which means it's earmarked for other people who need it more than the church does. I spare you the biblical quotes, but that's why they do it, it's part of their religion and belief system.

>>> But they also can do a lot of harm, like you know, oppressing people by opposing same sex marriage, or pretty much anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.

>>> Since we're focusing on catholics, what good is done by denying all of your employee's spouses insurance coverage, just so you don't have to extend the benefit to people in same sex marriages? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03....

Unreal.

I'm not going to take your bait troll, but nice try.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#89

Post by 1stop »

vectorsys wrote: post #84
1stop wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare is free in that anyone anywhere can go to a hospital with anything and be treated for it without paying anything. (And everyone who earns enough money pays taxes). You really want to argue that healthcare isn't 'free'? Gun control isn't 'authoritarian' it's sensible. Only with a screwed up U.S agg-prop point of view could you construe it as 'authoritarian', there is no mention of guns as a "right" in any o…

Australia is very authoritarian. They actually confiscated the guns. not just made them illegal. They threatened law abiding citizens with prison time for not turning them in. Here http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm when other authoritarian regimes have confiscated guns. Not only that, but crime went up in Australia. Obviously the criminals didn't turn in their guns. Australia also makes it mandatory to vote. Any k…

They made it illegal to own (certain) guns, then offered a buy back scheme, then they confiscated guns from those that didn't bring in... This works much like how 'drugs' are illegal, and the police confiscate them, so the U.S is just as authoritarian (but with drugs) in this regard.

Gun crime reduced dramatically, though when categorised as violent crime, the reduction was smaller and overall the crime rate has decreased year on year... so I don't know what you are referring to.

Mandatory voting is 'authoritarian'... are you kidding me? It stops 'vested interest' or disenfranchisement of portions of your population, and moves closer to real 'universal suffrage', I can see there is valid criticism in arguing it impinges personal freedom, but authoritarian again just seems you are pushing some odd right wing agenda here.

Compared the the U.S, Australia sits well and truly to the left, but the similarities I was referring too, was about the make up of the populations, Australia is a good test case (for the U.S) for assessing policy outcomes, especially when Australia has implemented said policy and has strong correlative outcomes.

You seem to have derailed the thread some-what with your propaganda and pro-gun agenda, which I have sadly fallen for.

My original point stands.

Re: What Happens When the Poor Receive a Stipend?

#90

Post by chii »

vectorsys wrote: post #84
1stop wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare is free in that anyone anywhere can go to a hospital with anything and be treated for it without paying anything. (And everyone who earns enough money pays taxes). You really want to argue that healthcare isn't 'free'? Gun control isn't 'authoritarian' it's sensible. Only with a screwed up U.S agg-prop point of view could you construe it as 'authoritarian', there is no mention of guns as a "right" in any o…

Australia is very authoritarian. They actually confiscated the guns. not just made them illegal. They threatened law abiding citizens with prison time for not turning them in. Here http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm when other authoritarian regimes have confiscated guns. Not only that, but crime went up in Australia. Obviously the criminals didn't turn in their guns. Australia also makes it mandatory to vote. Any k…

Mandatory voting is more democratic. The US should do the same.
Post reply on HN